Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Soulive Articel in the Globe and Mail


Marky

Recommended Posts

I was in attendance at the Soulive show and review of the show will be posted in the coming days. I have yet to send it to Mike as he's about to move this Friday and I don't want to bother him until he settles in.

FYI my review will be a lot more positive then the one found in the Globe & Mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether the G&M's review of the show or Canned Beats subsequent letter to the editor are correct or well-written, I'd just like to point out that it's really difficult to get national mainstream media to pay any attention to anything jam-related or a show by a relatively new independent promoter, so to this, I would like to offer my congratulations to Marky. And, with this in mind, at this point, positive or negative, a helluva lot more people have now heard of Soulive than would've had Mr. Mark Miller not written a review of the show.

Also, in my experience, and to their credit, The Globe & Mail have been more supportive of anything jam-related than any other of the larger newspapers. I use as examples their 1-1/2 page very insightful feature article about Phish and their surrounding scene from several years ago, their support of Merl Saunders when he came to town, and their pre-show interview with Jorma Kaukonen, along with many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I hadn't even read or payed attention to this until just now mainly because Beats posts have been so bloated and uninformed as of late I just literally gloss over them. A couple of thoughts.

Mark Miller is the most esteemed jazz writer in Canada, incredibly knowledgable about jazz and highly entitled to his opinion.

The review is very well written and surprisingly even handed given the derivative nature of Soulive and the billing of the series as progressive jazz. The reviewer likely understood the musicianship and interplay of the players better than anyone in the room (do you think anyone else picked up on the Adderly Mercy Mercy Mercy tease you fu©king dink).

I can't believe I am wasting time talking about a completely realistic and well written review.

I would have likely written a far harsher review. I truly believe Soulive are betraying their musical gifts by playing uninnspired twaddle.

Do you know who Andrew Hill is Beats? How about you listen to a number of his piano improvisations or do some research and then think about the word 'progressive' and whether it more rightly applies to Hill or Soulive. I am dumber for having read this thread.

This statement is true of much of what I feel about the jam scene.

the proceedings took an excessive turn toward easy improvisational rhetoric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know who Andrew Hill is Beats? How about you listen to a number of his piano improvisations or do some research and then think about the word 'progressive' and whether it more rightly applies to Hill or Soulive.

I saw Andrew Hill in Guelph a few years back at the Jazz Festival - he was *awesome*!! He played for about an hour, 100% solo improv on the piano. His album Point of Departure is quite excellent, too. I know he has many more good ones, but I'm poor and can't buy them right now. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when did i ever say i was shocked or frustrated about your retorts?? come on now - if you've ever hung out with me or talked to me in person you'd know that i'm glad somebody's saying something that's challenging my point. before i wrote a bloated and uninformed piece nobody had much to say. So i wrote a pissy letter. it's not a crime. i never said soulive were progressive - in fact, i stated that they AREN'T progressive. they're groovy. As well, I said nothing of miller's writing about JAZZ...just of it being a show review that I thought did nothing to elevate the live concert experience. I haven't been able to listen to a lot of newer music for a few reasons. a) cd's are expensive and i can't afford much of anything these days. B) i don't have access to high speed internet or a burner, and i can't afford the spindle of cd's that i need to get pirated music, and c) there's so much music out there I just don't have the time to find it all.

I'm always interested in hearing new music and if something is actually new and pushing the limits of Jazz or Classical music then I'm glad somebody's doing it. Personally, I'm glad soulive are getting younger people into jazz-based music, even if they're not doing anything mindblowing.

and for the record, zero, a show review isn't a content review. it's not there for a critique of how challenging the pieces are for the calibre of the artist. it's about the performance. that's where album reviews and artist profiles come into play. I understand that you're a supporter of people excelling and doing something special, but denouncing a show based on your personal tastes would come across as pretty frickin arrogant and it'd bastardize your writing.

i'm glad i got some backlash. At least you folks aren't putting up with my mediocre rhetoric, as long as you see it that way.

does anyone understand where i'm coming from at all?? i think that you have kinda missed my point and are just pissy at me cause i was less than nice to someone i dont' know and my arguments aren't backed up with research and a bibliography.

i just really resent seeing a jazz writer try to push his musical agenda into a review. Come on...it's soulive - it's not like he wrote a marginal review (my opinion) about charlie haden or keith jarrett. i wonder what he'll say about charlie hunter in october...if anything at all.

Zero - i understand what you're saying about wasting their musical gifts. musicians to an extend should be trying to do something special - cause our journey here is a spiritual one, and music has more power than many people have come to realize. I think that there's a growing movement of people trying to do something special for the world, and through their music soulive isn't one of them. I think though that they fill a void for people that need some funky release. It would be fair to say though that these guys have a lot more time left in them to go down a more solemn path. they're still young. you can't rush spirit. people need to have fun. I think soulive are very very fun. I think that if you went to a soulive show you'd probably be hung up on your own musical ethos and wouldn't be able to take them at face value. there's a time for being a serious and there's a time to lighten up.

i think a bunch of you are very serious.

i'm at a point in my life where i'm 'lightening up'.

I'm just glad i'm past letting you serious fellows get me down. I see where you're all coming from but I still read that article as being pretentious even if it's a great jazz writer - jazz afficianados often times have an air of pretention - i expect it nowadays. the article didn't come across as having strong convincing tone. he was picking the band apart musically. I think i'd have had a different approach if i wasn't impressed by the content...i'd focus on something else.

I'm sure Miller's written some great pieces but this one isn't breaking any new territory for me. Sort of an 'i don't want to come out and say i don't like these guys - but i don't' sort of review that covers the other side 'people are having a great time at the show...but that's not what i'm going to focus on'.

I've gotta say though - you smartypantses sure like to bicker...

I really think that you, zero, have been making an effort to get us out of our mediocre rut, even if this is just a messageboard. I genuinely appreciate it. you're the one that got many of us thinking about wilco again as well as a slew of other great acts. You're energized and I think you're a bit more enlightened in some ways and definitely self-enlightened in other ways. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. somebody's gotta be cocky and self assured - I've always admired that about you. You're yourself and i think that you strive to be the best that you can be. I feel kinda bad to have wasted your time with my 'bloated and uninformed' posts, but at least I'm writing about something and people are challenging me, the post, and themselves.

I think that's got more merit to it than my posts being informed or thoughtful to you or to hamilton or anyone else for that matter.

as much as it's nice to be able to write about fish being pets or not, i'd rather know that people are actually thinking about being critical or thinking in general...not just reminiscing. We've got to make the future better...not like the better days before that led us to these times that might just need improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay considering all of the sh!t I've subjected you all to I bothered to read it.

and for the record, zero, a show review isn't a content review. it's not there for a critique of how challenging the pieces are for the calibre of the artist. it's about the performance.

Yes it is. This statement is idiotic and just plain wrong.

i understand what you're saying about wasting their musical gifts. musicians to an extend should be trying to do something special - cause our journey here is a spiritual one, and music has more power than many people have come to realize. I think that there's a growing movement of people trying to do something special for the world, and through their music soulive isn't one of them. I think though that they fill a void for people that need some funky release. It would be fair to say though that these guys have a lot more time left in them to go down a more solemn path. they're still young. you can't rush spirit. people need to have fun. I think soulive are very very fun. I think that if you went to a soulive show you'd probably be hung up on your own musical ethos and wouldn't be able to take them at face value. there's a time for being a serious and there's a time to lighten up.

This I agree with but only after bothering to read another of your endless posts.

the article didn't come across as having strong convincing tone. he was picking the band apart musically.

Back to total and complete idiocy. I’m not even gonna bother with putting up the dictionary definition of criticism or critique. The article DID come across as having a strong and convincing tone, picking apart a band musically IS what a music CRITIC does particularly a jazz music critic. Please consider that the people on this board aren’t venting some agenda against you it just happens you are making poorly reasoned conclusions. Period.

I'm sure Miller's written some great pieces but this one isn't breaking any new territory for me. Sort of an 'i don't want to come out and say i don't like these guys - but i don't' sort of review that covers the other side 'people are having a great time at the show...but that's not what i'm going to focus on'.

Holy fu©king sh!t buddy your wholesale ignorance of your own inconsistencies is staggering. So for the record Mark Miller should give a fair and balanced review but shouldn’t speak his mind truthfully and also shouldn’t dislike Soulive because you do. Is that your position? That was not a real question because I am going to fu©king puke if you do not gain some insight very fu©king soon.

as much as it's nice to be able to write about fish being pets or not, i'd rather know that people are actually thinking about being critical or thinking in general...not just reminiscing. We've got to make the future better...not like the better days before that led us to these times that might just need improvement.

Thank you for the compliments. Sorry I am being so harsh. At least you ended on a strong note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't ever resent anybody being harsh. if i make a comment it's more to lighten the mood. people here are passoinate about many things in their lives.

and sorry to madden you if i'm gong to but i never said anything to the effect that Miller should like soulive or pretend he would do so. I guess i'm the kind of person that appreciates writers picking up on the good things about their subjects and running with them. It would be safe to say that the mood at the opera house was fun - but Miller didn't seem to be having fun. there wasn't likely much room for the article and he'd have to cover a lot of bases with the piece. I like it when stories jump off the page a little more.

how come i can't put all that typing into a short story or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think this thread should die a quick death, so I'm piping in yet again but for the last time because I think it's starting to get out of hand here.

Normally I can respect anyone's opinions no matter how baseless or unconvincing it might seem to be. Even fu©king J Roc has something interesting to say, and if it's boring to me well then it's all good brah because I'm just one of many here. Do I hate pants? Well no, and that's a pretty silly thing to be posting on a jamband messageboard but for every one of those threads there are 2 or 3 that are either of musical or general interest, so much so that the participation goes on for 2, 3 or 4 pages at a time. Reading a thread where someone wondered why The Slip gets so much love was a dagger in the heart but there's plenty of subjectivity at play, and no matter how much I love that band I would never decide that was a good reason to deride someone because their take was different than mine.

But CB I feel like throughout this "discussion" (quoted because if this were in person you'd have stepped down much quicker I think) you've not only ignored some valid and quite substantive counter-arguments to both your letter and follow up replies, you made light of these responses with thinly-veiled jabs at people and by deciding on your very own that somehow this conversation is confined to the world of "smartypantses". I really take offense to that not only because this is a much more inclusive music community than most, but because I'm not one of those stupid indie fu©ckers who goes to a show and stares at a band. I may not dance but if the music's emotive (for good or bad) I'll express myself and participate freely.

What would have been great is if your hollow praises of public discourse and shallow Zero compliments were replaced by actually addressing what been said about the article, your letter or anything else for that matter. I'm really disappointed that you skirted around that in order to:

- Declare objectively, and more than once in this entire thread that you know what a show review is supposed to be

- Decide, since you know Mr.Miller so well, that he is a snooty jazz critic (have you emailed him yet?)

- Ignore over and over that he did say some good things about the "show" in the "show review" (see "room vibe", "people dancing"...how did you miss this?)

- Decide for yourself that the media giving sh!tty reviews about a band is logically why summer festivals and live music in general is failing (as an aside I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, or if you're only referring to Jam music or what)

If I've taken you out of context please correct me. Just know that I'm really disappointed (not in a caps-lock way mind you) that you couldn't stand up and defend yourself well. If you wanted criticism of you're writing you should've been able to address it head-on and maybe own up to a hastily-written and generally piss-poor letter that made Miller's article gleam like gold by comparison.

And I'm glad you're taking yourself less seriously in life. So when I say stop writing letters to the editor that make us look like narrow-minded, syntax-challenged concertgoers I know you won't take it too seriously. After all, you love that we're challenging your writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry i didn't acknowledge what you guys had to say. i'm horrible for that. i've never really been a here's my point, your point was good, here's another point, and your other point was good kinda of guy. i'm not much for internettiquette(did i just make up a goofy term? (nettiquette)probably not) and i apologize for being insensitive. The reason i never directly address your well thought out and absolutely spot on comments and retorts is because you're right and if you haven't noticed, i'm not arguing against them so much as explaining my perspective on why i wrote what i wrote - not saying no you're wrong cause of this, but saying, no what i meant was that.

I don't think my 'compliments' i threw out to zero were empty. maybe not in the most appropriate thread, but they were applicable at the time.

Don't worry about me speaking for much of anybody. nowhere in the letter did i mention a band or act other than soulive - i did say 'top notch american acts' but that's pretty vague. as far as that's concerned i could've been talking about other jazz artists or theatre-sized acts.

as far as the few positive comments Miller made in his article, they were few. The only real POSITIVE things Miller said were 'Quite well, it turns out -- at least to the series' second offering, the New York organ trio Soulive, which played to a fair-sized, young and enthusiastic crowd on Thursday night at The Opera House.' when referring to how a typically cautious toronto crowd warmed up to Soulive and 'Soulive played a variety of scarcely differentiated dance pieces whose obvious, crowd-working arrangements had this crowd reacting right on cue with hearty circus cheers. ' i can't tell whether or not the 'circus cheers' comment is positive or negative so i'm just assuming it was positive, as i think we'd all have fun at the circus...they worked the crowd well...still he was commenting te marginality of the show so although a positive situation, it was still negative as well.

I didn't mean to upset anyone that i called a smartypants. i take that back from anyone that feels hurt or offended by the remark. If you can see the homour in it and care to retort back then go ahead. I was just joking around about the intelligence of your britches. most of you are fairly stylish people.

If you've kept tabs on my posts like hamilton has, you'll know that i'm a person that has blamed many things for the demise of live music in canada through baseless arguments and speculation. because nobody has actively studied this to my knowledge, there's no one specific reason that people aren't going to shows in all the towns in ontario. sure shows happen and people see concerts but something seems to be lacking and all i'm doing is tossing out thoughts. sorry if you feel i'm too assertive with my baseless thoughts and ideas, or if you think i come across as arrogant or self-serving or stupid or ignorant. I dished it out, i'd better eat what's on my plate, right??

sure montreal, toronto, and vancouver get the names...what about ottawa, hamilton, quebec city, halifax, calgary, edmonton, victoria, saskatoon, winnipeg?? they get bigger acts but they're all cities i rarely see on a lot of touring acts' tour dates. It's hard to get support for music in Canada without serious promotion and publicity and i can't expect everybody to tour everywhere when acts would make more money in larger centres with bigger venues.

well pass the pepper. I understand your perspectives on the thread and I'm glad to have gone through this exercise.

and i understand how you see my conclusions are poorly reasoned. I think they're differently reasoned. It all boils down to the piece being a critique rather than a review(as an example)...sorry to be so bloated once again but i had to sum it up. I understand that i might generally come across as a tool - specifically here, but perhaps elsewhere. I hope that hasn't overly affected peoples' perspectives on me when meeting me in person.

i'm lucky the only trouble i get myself into is either online or easily resolved with bribes...i'd be in real trouble otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 1 really only one question.

How did Ahess manage to type this?

"fu©ckers"

2 c's would have skipped past the censor word replacement script, so there must have been some editing....or is there a bug?

To stay on target, about the review, the opening is certainly positive....

"The question is this: How will Toronto fans, normally a cautious bunch, respond?

Quite well, it turns out"

The rest isn't nearly as negative as Monsieur Beats seemed to take it and now a category 5 sh!t hurricane made landfall all over Canned Beats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...